Shouldn't We Be Focusing On The Poker Carve Out?

[Q_and_A]

Party's original success was attracting US players to their poker room. For the last two years they have been slowly exposing poker players to their casino games and integrating the casino site with the poker site. The line has blurred between casino games and poker at Party. For legal/moral issues requiring a distinction between poker and casino games, this is unfortunate.

Though I believe that all types of internet gaming/gambling should be a purely individual choice, online poker (arguably a game of skill) is usually easier to advocate and rationalize versus casino games (based largely on chance). Some have argued that "offering" real money poker online is not prohibited by any federal law, even the latest UIGEA legislation. The thought of an expressly clear federal legislative exemption for online poker is batted about as an eventual likelihood. Sportsbooks and casinos seem to face a much more difficult road to exemption.

Are sites that offer gaming in addition to poker in a more difficult position (Party)? Should these sites do more to segregate poker from other gaming?

[AJay]

Yes, blackjack is not a game of skill really...well, yes, it's a game of skill in that there is an optimal strategy, but it's STILL a losing strategy! There's also an optimal strategy for slots (bet the max!), but that doesn't really make it a game of strategy either.

If the optimal strategy just makes you less of a loser, it's not much of a real game, IMO.

[Ignignokt]

[ QUOTE ]
Party's original success was attracting US players to their poker room. For the last two years they have been slowly exposing poker players to their casino games and integrating the casino site with the poker site. The line has blurred between casino games and poker at Party. For legal/moral issues requiring a distinction between poker and casino games, this is unfortunate.

[/ QUOTE ]

But completely planned - Party saw its poker revenues flattening, and as a publicly traded company it required increased revenues to help keep the stock price up. But they still haven't completely merged their poker and casino sites, so it's not irreversible, if they don't want it to be.

(BTW, my theory on the Party pull-out: prelude to a formal protest with an eye on stronger WTO action/sanctions.)

[ QUOTE ]
Are sites that offer gaming in addition to poker in a more difficult position (Party)? Should these sites do more to segregate poker from other gaming?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it has been shown that this is so (recent high-profile arrests of offshore gaming execs). Sports bookmaking in particular has clear legal precedent for arrest and prosecution. You can argue about the Wire Act's application to poker, but not about its application to sports books.

Yet this causes a dilemma - you-know-who's well-known rantings about China notwithstanding, the poker boom in most of the world can't last forever. It may have already peaked. In any case, it will ebb and flow in the future - not a good forecast for a business if it wants to go public at any point. The natural way to help bridge those peaks is to offer a variety of gaming.

So maintaining a poker-only site may be better for legal reasons, but not so good for profitability.